Facts
- Individuals engaged in expressive activity on the sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Court building, including distributing leaflets on causes and displaying a picket sign bearing the text of the First Amendment.
- Federal officials enforced 40 U.S.C. § 13k, which prohibited displaying “any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement” in the Supreme Court building or “on its grounds.”
- The statute defined “grounds” to include the public sidewalks constituting the outer boundaries of the Supreme Court grounds.
- The speakers sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that § 13k violated the First Amendment as applied to peaceful expressive activity on the surrounding sidewalks.
Issues
- Whether the perimeter sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Court, though statutorily included within the Court’s “grounds,” are a traditional public forum for First Amendment purposes.
- Whether 40 U.S.C. § 13k’s categorical prohibition of certain expressive displays is constitutional as applied to peaceful leafletting and picketing on those sidewalks.
- Whether the statute may be invalidated on its face, or only as applied to the perimeter sidewalks.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held that § 13k is unconstitutional under the First Amendment insofar as it is applied to the public sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Court building.
- The Court treated the perimeter sidewalks as traditional public forums because they were indistinguishable from other public sidewalks in Washington, D.C.
- Because the statute imposed a total ban on a broad category of communicative activity on those sidewalks, it failed the standard governing restrictions in public forums.
- The Court affirmed only to the extent the statute applied to the perimeter sidewalks and declined to decide the statute’s validity as applied to the Supreme Court building or non-sidewalk portions of the grounds.
Legal Principles
- Peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities protected by the First Amendment.
- Streets and sidewalks are traditional public forums; restrictions there must satisfy the rules governing public-forum regulation.
- In a traditional public forum, the government may impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.
- A categorical ban on a type of expression in a traditional public forum is permissible only if narrowly drawn to serve a compelling governmental interest.
- Government property does not become a public forum solely because the public is permitted to enter, but a sidewalk that is indistinguishable from ordinary public sidewalks retains traditional public-forum status even if it borders or is associated with nonpublic forum property.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the sidewalks forming the Supreme Court grounds’ perimeter are traditional public forums and that a broad statutory prohibition on expressive displays cannot be applied there as an absolute ban; the ruling was limited to the sidewalks and did not invalidate the statute as applied to the building or other Court grounds.